Previous daf

1)

(a) ben Buchri, we said earlier, is coming to teach us that a Kohen who donates a half-Shekel is not guilty of bringing Chulin to the Azarah.
Why not?

(b) If not for T'nai Beis-Din, why, according to ben Buchri, would the Kohanim not be permitted to use the salt?

(c) What does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Al ha'Eitzim Asher al ha'Eish Asher al ha'Mizbe'ach"? In what respect does the Torah compare Eitzim to the Mizbe'ach?

(d) Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua learns from the same Hekesh that Eitzim, like Mizbe'ach, must not have been used by a Hedyot.
How do we translate this into practical terms? What does Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua require that Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon does not?

(a) When, in Seifer Sh'muel, Aravnah ha'Yevusi sold David Hamelech the Makom ha'Mikdash, he also sold him the cattle with which he had been plowing.
What was David meant to do with them?

(b) One of the things included in the sale was "Morigin", which Ula translates as 'Mitah shel Turbal', which Rav Yehudah defines as 'Iza de'Kurk'sa de'Dasha bah Dashta'i'. Rav Yosef cites the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Hinei Samtich *le'Morag* Charutz Chadash Ba'al Pifiyos"?
What in fact, is 'Morigin'?

(c) How do we reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua, who requires new wood to be used for the Korbanos?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about the Kometz of a Minchas Yisrael that became mixed with ...

1. ... another Kometz?
2. ... a Minchas Kohanim, a Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or a Minchas Nesachim?

(b) What is the reason for these rulings?

(c) On what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah invalidate a Kometz that became mixed up with a Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach or a Minchas Nesachim?

(d) Why, in this last case, does the Tana say 'Pesulah' and not 'Pesulos'?

(a) The Mishnah in Zevachim validates blood that became mixed with water, provided it still resembles blood.
What does the Tana Kama say in a case where it became mixed with ...

1. ... wine?
2. ... the blood of Beheimos or Chayos?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the latter ruling.
What does he say?

5)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains that both Tana'im derive their respective reasons from the same source.
What is the problem with the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ve'lakach mi'Dam ha'Par u'mi'Dam ha'Sa'ir"?

(b) What do the Rabbanan extrapolate from there? How does it explain their opinion in the Mishnah in Zevachim?

(c) What does Rebbi Yehudah extrapolate from this Pasuk?

(a) How do the Rabbanan know that the Torah's reason is not because of 'Miyn be'Miyno'?

(b) And how does Rebbi Yehudah know that the Torah's reason is not because of 'Ein Olin Mevatlin ... '?

(c) What problem do we still have with both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) How do we solve the problem?

(a) What Kashya do we ask on Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah ('be'Minchas Kohen Mashi'ach u've'Minchas Nesachim Pesulah she'Zu Belilasah Avah ... '), based on Rebbi' Yehudah's own opinion in the Mishnah in Zevachim?

(b) Rava answers that Rebbi Yehudah holds Kol she'Hu Miyn be'Miyno ve'Davar Acher, Saleik es Miyno ke'Mi she'Eino ... '.
How does the principle end?

(c) What does it mean in our context?

Next daf